a big part of why i don't have facebook, and hopefully never will, are all the delicacies about who to friend, unfriend, etc.

My rant about the many reasons I think facebook is fundamentally flawed is another essay, and already covered by plenty of people.

Yeah, Facebook is the debil, and all the cool hipster kids hate on it these days.

Personally, I like it. I keep up with what my kids and friends are doing without 37 long phone conversations every single day. I have cool new science papers and blog posts come through my feed fairly constantly, and I can put out a call for a paper I don't have access to, but need, and have a copy usually within about five minutes. I make new photography contacts through friends and find out about group events and gallery exhibit openings (went to one last night, actually, had a lot of fun), and even just get ideas about what I want a model's eye make-up to look like in that shoot I'm planning for next week.

I tend to not care much about who unfriends me. I thought it was funny when my Pop did. Frankly, if anyone over the age of 14 is sweating who to friend or unfriend, it's probably best that they stay off Facebook. I'd give that advice to my Pop on his Facebook wall, but, um.. yeah.

I have friends who are comic-book artists for whom facebook is a godsend.

For me, it's simple. Society depends on us being different people in different circumstances. I am chief hardware geek for a tool company. I am not the same person in that role, as I am when I'm in the role of, say, 'relative of tea party types'. Roles are somewhat separate. 'Friend of Ginger the sexy communist', 'friend of Harry the grumpy senior who hates obama and cursing on tv', 'friend of lesbian couple Stormy and Linda Sue', 'Friend of coworker Mike the FauxNews addict', 'friend of Ecstasy user Winnie', 'The Steve who goes on benders with Rob the Heavy Drinking Democrat', 'friend of Jenn the conspiracy believing new ager' are all different roles I play. "Friend of Steff' and 'friend of Sara Sue' are different roles, in part because either would hate me if they knew i was friends with the other. There's no such thing as just Public Steve and Private Steve.

Also, a quick google will find you numerous articles along the lines of '10 reasons facebook is bad' that I'll mostly agree with.

I have friends who are comic-book artists for whom facebook is a godsend.

For me, it's simple. Society depends on us being different people in different circumstances. I am chief hardware geek for a tool company. I am not the same person in that role, as I am when I'm in the role of, say, 'relative of tea party types'. Roles are somewhat separate. 'Friend of Ginger the sexy communist', 'friend of Harry the grumpy senior who hates obama and cursing on tv', 'friend of lesbian couple Stormy and Linda Sue', 'Friend of coworker Mike the FauxNews addict', 'friend of Ecstasy user Winnie', 'The Steve who goes on benders with Rob the Heavy Drinking Democrat', 'friend of Jenn the conspiracy believing new ager' are all different roles I play. "Friend of Steff' and 'friend of Sara Sue' are different roles, in part because either would hate me if they knew i was friends with the other. There's no such thing as just Public Steve and Private Steve.

Also, a quick google will find you numerous articles along the lines of '10 reasons facebook is bad' that I'll mostly agree with.

Very interesting and thought provoking.

Out of curiosity, is there any role for Steve to play?

On the one hand I agree with you. We all play roles. On the other hand, I am who I am and if someone doesn't like that, then they are free to leave me the hell alone. I've lost several fb friends and a father that way.

--------------Ignored by those who can't provide evidence for their claims.

They're all roles for Steve. But who I am, or anyone is, is context dependent. It's about how the relative strengths of your values change depending on the circumstances. For example, if I'm talking to the faux news guy at work, the value of getting along overshadows the value of being right. If I'm arguing with a respected physics colleague, it's the opposite.

seriously, the shit is like a fairy tale. 400 foot trees. 25 foot thick coal seams. 5 meter artesian wells of bourbon. 72 virgins. more tard than you could EVER EVER EVER consume. it's like fractal baskin and robbins factorial. it's like burger king on acid, the shit is YOUR WAY URRY DAY

get you a nym and hie thee to that shitbin and never ever ever use your real name. the payoff is immortality. i have devoured the tard of the woods, the tard of the sea, the tard of the loins of abraham, but ferceberk provides you with an endless smorgasbord of tard

just think how fucking stupid the median 'merican really is. now, imagine that that dipshit posts his or her thoughts to the world on a daily basis. oh yes. brb gotta go check my tardfarm

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

get you a nym and hie thee to that shitbin and never ever ever use your real name. the payoff is immortality. i have devoured the tard of the woods, the tard of the sea, the tard of the loins of abraham, but ferceberk provides you with an endless smorgasbord of tard

Does anyone know the nomination procedure for Poet Laureate?

--------------Math is just a language of reality. Its a waste of time to know it. - Robert Byers

get you a nym and hie thee to that shitbin and never ever ever use your real name. the payoff is immortality. i have devoured the tard of the woods, the tard of the sea, the tard of the loins of abraham, but ferceberk provides you with an endless smorgasbord of tard

Does anyone know the nomination procedure for Poet Laureate?

LOL that job is one of those where everyone takes a turn getting in the barrel, aint it?

--------------You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

get you a nym and hie thee to that shitbin and never ever ever use your real name. the payoff is immortality. i have devoured the tard of the woods, the tard of the sea, the tard of the loins of abraham, but ferceberk provides you with an endless smorgasbord of tard

Does anyone know the nomination procedure for Poet Laureate?

LOL that job is one of those where everyone takes a turn getting in the barrel, aint it?

That actually is brilliantly nuts.

--------------The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection.

--------------"But it's disturbing to think someone actually thinks creationism -- having put it's hand on the hot stove every day for the last 400 years -- will get a different result tomorrow." -- midwifetoad

Long after the idea of spontaneous generation of maggots, mice and worms had been generally discarded, scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals.

I know this subject is covered by Claim CB000 of Index to Creationist Claims at the t.o. archive, but is there any substance to the claim that "scientists still clung ...", or is it entirely an invention by AiG? Who might those scientists possibly have been, do any reliable reference exist?

I like to be 100% certain when debating creationists; I believe I beat them with good margin in that respect.

Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek (1632–1723) was one of the first people to observe microorganisms, using a microscope of his own design, and made one of the most important contributions to biology.[22] Robert Hooke was the first to use a microscope to observe living things; his 1665 book Micrographia contained descriptions of plant cells.

Before Leeuwenhoek's discovery of microorganisms in 1675, it had been a mystery why grapes could be turned into wine, milk into cheese, or why food would spoil. Leeuwenhoek did not make the connection between these processes and microorganisms, but using a microscope, he did establish that there were forms of life that were not visible to the naked eye.[23][24] Leeuwenhoek's discovery, along with subsequent observations by Spallanzani and Pasteur, ended the long-held belief that life spontaneously appeared from non-living substances during the process of spoilage.

Hi Quack, just a quick reply, I'll try to find more.

Edit: You might find the Wiki on Spontaneous Generation interesting; it comes with links.

--------------Joe: Most criticisims of ID stem from ignorance and jealousy.Joe: As for the authors of the books in the Bible, well the OT was authored by Moses and the NT was authored by various people.Byers: The eskimo would not need hairy hair growth as hair, I say, is for keeping people dry. Not warm.